Stokes v. Suffolk County
| Decision Date | 01 May 1978 |
| Parties | Albert E. STOKES, Respondent, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Howard E. Pachman, County Atty., Hauppauge (Anton J. Borovina, Hauppauge, of counsel), for appellant.
Robert C. Mitchell, Bay Shore, for respondent.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and MARTUSCELLO and O'CONNOR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action inter alia to recover a sum of money representing the difference in the salary received by plaintiff under an erroneous classification and the salary he should have received, defendant appeals, on the ground of excessiveness, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 22, 1977, and made after an inquest held pursuant to a prior order of this court (Stokes v. County of Suffolk, 55 A.D.2d 949, 391 N.Y.S.2d 145).
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
A prior judgment in this action was signed on January 27, 1976. That judgment was partly in favor of the plaintiff and partly in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed from the portion of the judgment which was in favor of the defendant and against him; the defendant did not appeal. We reversed the judgment insofar as it was appealed from, on the law, and remitted the action to Trial Term for an inquest. The defendant now appeals, on the ground of excessiveness, from the judgment entered after the inquest. The only issue raised by the defendant is an issue which could have been presented on the appeal from the original judgment. That issue was referred to in the defendant's brief on the prior appeal. Under these circumstances, consideration of that issue on the merits is precluded by the doctrine of law of the case.
SHAPIRO, J., concurs in the result on constraint of the holding in Stokes v. County of Suffolk, 55 A.D.2d 949, 391 N.Y.S.2d 145.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Taylor
...because it was induced by a promise of leniency, is also subject to the doctrine of the law of the case (See, Stokes v. County of Suffolk, 63 A.D.2d 645, 404 N.Y.S.2d 378 People v. Winslow, 36 A.D.2d 997, 321 N.Y.S.2d 722 ). Further, assuming the merits of this issue are confronted on this ......
-
Schwartzberg v. Axelrod
...of Smith, 91 A.D.2d 789, 458 N.Y.S.2d 72). This bars consideration of this issue on the instant appeal (see, Stokes v. County of Suffolk, 63 A.D.2d 645, 646, 404 N.Y.S.2d 378). Respondent argues that Special Term violated this court's order when it included the $206,000 after this court dec......
-
Tenuto v. Lederle Laboratories
...of the merits of that issue on this appeal is precluded pursuant to the doctrine of law of the case (see, Stokes v. County of Suffolk, 63 A.D.2d 645, 404 N.Y.S.2d 378). We have reviewed the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without ...
-
Corporate Property Investors v. Board of Assessors of County of Nassau
...37 N.Y.2d 162, 371 N.Y.S.2d 687, 332 N.E.2d 867; Carole A. v. City of New York, 169 A.D.2d 800, 565 N.Y.S.2d 169; Stokes v. County of Suffolk, 63 A.D.2d 645, 404 N.Y.S.2d 378). Moreover, we find no extraordinary circumstances in this case which would merit a departure from that doctrine (se......